Over at "The Bell Towers" you can now find my interview with the Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro on Shelby County v. Holder. Check it out! (Shelby County v. Holder: The Future of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
As I write in the introduction:
"Shelby County v. Holder is one of the more interesting, even controversial, cases at the Supreme Court this term. It concerns the constitutionality of portions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, an historic piece of civil rights legislation that has helped to reorder American society following the lamentable years of Jim Crow. The Act itself represents an heroic effort to remedy the long-lasting effects of slavery and to fulfill the promises of Reconstruction.
Yet, much has changed since the end of Jim Crow, the dismantling of segregation, and the racially charged era of the 1960s and 70s. Undoubtedly, racial discrimination is still a reality in many sectors of American society, but the obvious and intentional discrimination by the State in politically disenfranchising minorities is hardly commonplace. There is a strong argument, then, that the circumstances originally justifying the unprecedented reach of the Voting Rights Act can no longer be used to defend the continued application of certain portions of the Act that infringe on traditional areas of state sovereignty, deny equal protection, and upset the Founders’ conception of federalism.
The arguments either way are complicated. And given the racial dimension, public discourse about the Act’s continued constitutionality is hardly honest and open. Race, among other things, impassions people and can blind us to the legal technicalities and nuances that mark the Court’s equal protection jurisprudence. At “The Bell Towers,” we strive to present honest commentary that aids our readers in forming their own opinions on the legal and political issues of the day. The following interview with Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute represents an effort to provide, you, the reader, with the basic fact and issues of Shelby County v. Holder, and to provide some hard-biting legal analysis from the conservative-libertarian perspective."
As I write in the introduction:
"Shelby County v. Holder is one of the more interesting, even controversial, cases at the Supreme Court this term. It concerns the constitutionality of portions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, an historic piece of civil rights legislation that has helped to reorder American society following the lamentable years of Jim Crow. The Act itself represents an heroic effort to remedy the long-lasting effects of slavery and to fulfill the promises of Reconstruction.
Yet, much has changed since the end of Jim Crow, the dismantling of segregation, and the racially charged era of the 1960s and 70s. Undoubtedly, racial discrimination is still a reality in many sectors of American society, but the obvious and intentional discrimination by the State in politically disenfranchising minorities is hardly commonplace. There is a strong argument, then, that the circumstances originally justifying the unprecedented reach of the Voting Rights Act can no longer be used to defend the continued application of certain portions of the Act that infringe on traditional areas of state sovereignty, deny equal protection, and upset the Founders’ conception of federalism.
The arguments either way are complicated. And given the racial dimension, public discourse about the Act’s continued constitutionality is hardly honest and open. Race, among other things, impassions people and can blind us to the legal technicalities and nuances that mark the Court’s equal protection jurisprudence. At “The Bell Towers,” we strive to present honest commentary that aids our readers in forming their own opinions on the legal and political issues of the day. The following interview with Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute represents an effort to provide, you, the reader, with the basic fact and issues of Shelby County v. Holder, and to provide some hard-biting legal analysis from the conservative-libertarian perspective."
